After three years of negotiations, Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre executive director Sunny Marriner has helped convince Ottawa police to turn over some of their sexual assault investigations for outside review.

Advocates for women say a new pilot project — which allows outside experts in gender-based violence to review sexual assault investigations by police in Ontario and Alberta — will increase the number of charges laid and improve public trust.

Sexual assault investigations in Ottawa, Timmins, Ont., Peterborough, Ont., London, Ont., and Calgary will be reviewed by an outside panel of experts who work with survivors of sexual and domestic violence. Kingston, Ont., and Stratford, Ont., are also part of the pilot and completed their case reviews earlier this fall.

The Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre and the Ottawa Coalition To End Violence Against Women are spearheading the project in Ontario with funding from Status of Women Canada over three years. [....]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/.....-1.4433473

This is like fitting a pack of vigilantes into the process and giving them a salary to find a way to get more men busted and have their lives ruined, as acts of revenge by women. Because while old-fashioned rape was one of the most under-reported crimes, it is also one of those crimes in which the rate of false accusations is high. That's not just me.

Quote:

... , the FBI Uniform Crime Report in 1996 and the United States Department of Justice in 1997 reported that 8% of accusations for forcible rape had been through investigation determined to be false.[3][4][5] Studies in other countries have reported their own rates at anywhere from 1.5% (Denmark) to 10% (Canada).[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

But we have been allowing charges of rape to go forward on the woman's evidence alone, that is the charge alone ensures the trial, there need be zero corroborating evidence! We've been doing that since the early 1980ies, about 35 years!

But that wasn't enough, the crime of rape went from "dragged into the bushes" rape to a series of evermore 'inclusive' terms -- through sexual assault to the idea of sexual harrassment. Sexual harrassment is defined so vaguely that an angry woman might think she qualifies for the services of her pimp, the State.

And they're going nuts, stirring the passions of young women on campuses, teaching their dumbest students that words are a form of violence. We had the recent trial of a man who was prosecuted in a trial that lasted two years for remarks made on twitter, when he wasn't even in the presence of the 'victim' and made no remarks that the police official investigating considered 'sexual' or threatening.

I don't think that even such a partisan as TC would deny those facts. But twitter-rage is not rape. Feminists consider this judgement a failure of the courts.

Meanwhile. what we really have here is a politicization of the courts. Gender is politics out where your kids or grandkids spend most of their day -- in the schools. It's reinforced in the TV they watch, and the pop culture they are provided with. They have been brainwashed to believe that rape is common, backed by a cabal of men who only use women.

And this is where we are today -- committees of activists calling police officials to account for their investigation decisions!

You have to understand, at this point, we are talking about a crime for which there is no objective evidence. You have also to understand that any objective investigation starts with the crime, not with the complaint. So objective investigations are essentially impossible. All of these contradictions fall on the police, particularly the detectives doing the actual investigation.

They know that there are cases where women are launching bogus charges but they have to treat those allegations as evidence! And if she can cry on cue, the accused is in an essentially in a 'prove-your-innocence' situation. Any big-city experienced detective working in that field would know that these situations come up. Let's assume they have developed ways of handling it, of deep-sixing investigations particularly when the same woman is reporting her third and fourth sex crime.

These practices are the target here. The protections for the accused have been largely removed. He is restricted in his ability to cross-examine the evidence, and nothing corroborates her story, yet he is in a reverse onus situation which open to abuse.

And I'll bet there won't be a single Conservative squeak, even from out-of-province. Too gutless. What would they tell their wives?

Gender politics again. This has to be 100% illegal except ... its for the women ... again.

Illegal?

Oh not at all.

Quote:

After three years of negotiations, Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre executive director Sunny Marriner has helped convince Ottawa police to turn over some of their sexual assault investigations for outside review.

Seems ok by me.

They want to review things, perhaps fresh eyes will see something different . Should be good news.

Quote:

But we have been allowing charges of rape to go forward on the woman's evidence alone, that is the charge alone ensures the trial, there need be zero corroborating evidence!

Perhaps you could back that up with a link? Make for some interesting reading. Thanks in advance. I shall be back later to read up on your posted link.

Quote:

We had the recent trial of a man who was prosecuted in a trial that lasted two years for remarks made on twitter, when he wasn't even in the presence of the 'victim' and made no remarks that the police official investigating considered 'sexual' or threatening.

Well duh....Thats why he wasnt charged with any sexual crime.

But was convicted for CRIMINAL harassment. Guess what? He wasnt charged nor convicted for jaywalking either !

Amazing huh?

Quote:

I don't think that even such a partisan as TC would deny those facts.

What facts? YOu have a long history of either not showing them, or misreading them or interpreting them in a way that NO one else does.

Show the facts please.

Quote:

But twitter-rage is not rape. Feminists consider this judgement a failure of the courts.

They do? Where? PLease show me.

Quote:

They have been brainwashed to believe that rape is common, backed by a cabal of men who only use women.

It is.

What neanderthal told you otherwise?

Quote:

And I'll bet there won't be a single Conservative squeak, even from out-of-province. Too gutless. What would they tell their wives?

Probably not.

The average Conservative is a whole lot smarter than what you are trying to peddle.

You don't think it would be illegal for the Italian Canadian Friendship Society to be given oversight over the police's treatment of Italians?

This is akin to the way the Bolsheviks had commissars reporting on the decisions of everybody at the job. People who did the wrong thing could disappear in the middle of the night, and soon all record of their existence smudged away.

I don't say it's like this in Canada, but if this isn't a political oversight by a committee of zealots. And what does this do but corrupt our police? How do they investigate objectively when they have no crime and are only enforcing the acts of revenge of resentful females. What would a declared expectation of more convictions make things better?

TC, I think you're a moral lunatic. You sleep with an abortionist, you aren't normal. Your attitudes aren't sensible as practical policy. You don't have to live in that world. I don't see my expectations about gender to be engineered, and backed up with state-organized terrorism? This is the thing -- we don't even have evidence that a crime has been committed. We have a story that is accepted as the starting point of the investigation. That investigation has almost nothing to investigate. In fact, recent trials have shown the women, at the time, even encouraged more of the same. The mattress girl, remember her? -- she sent her previous boyfriend lusty emails about the event and invited more of the same. Yet she represented herself as a rape victim.

Gregory Allan Elliott was charged with criminal sexual harassment. You don't get into a trial unless you are charged with something. The women who charged him were officers of an organization called Toronto Women in Politics, some of whose members work in the AG's office. No precedent for this case exists.

Ghomeshi's real crime seems to have been that he turned the women who charged him down.

All of these cases are unprecedented, and women have been allowed to commit actual crimes in obstructing justice, public mischief, and slander. Yet they don't have to answer for anything.

People will read what we each say and will decide. Most people don't want to face up to what is happening, the politicization our courts. They avert their eyes from the abuses. You can actually say women don't lie without losing your credibility in today's social environment. Everyone lies, and everyone ought to know it.

You don't think it would be illegal for the Italian Canadian Friendship Society to be given oversight over the police's treatment of Italians?

So now we have gone from the sexes (of which there are only two) to a race issue?

Oversight means what ? This is the crux that needs to be explained.

Quote:

This is akin to the way the Bolsheviks had commissars reporting on the decisions of everybody at the job. People who did the wrong thing could disappear in the middle of the night, and soon all record of their existence smudged away.

A tad...nay...over the top hyperbole No?

Quote:

I don't say it's like this in Canada, but if this isn't a political oversight by a committee of zealots. And what does this do but corrupt our police? How do they investigate objectively when they have no crime and are only enforcing the acts of revenge of resentful females. What would a declared expectation of more convictions make things better?

Political? How so?
Police investigate and do their job. The oversight is supposed to see if they are doing it right, perhaps offering suggestion to improve the way things are done.
No harm that I see. They will not have legal standing.

Quote:

TC, I think you're a moral lunatic. You sleep with an abortionist, you aren't normal.

LOL!
Your wild assumptions continually miss and make you look like a jackass.

I dont sleep, never have, with an abortionist. I did sleep with a woman who had one, hell I even paid for most of it.
All legal too. Smartest move we made at the time. Dont regret it one bit. Still in touch w her to this day, great friends.
And?

Quote:

Your attitudes aren't sensible as practical policy.

I can only read into this as "you dont like something" , ergo the rest of us are not practical.
But I do like facts, something you do not thus you make up things to try and prove a point. Bryant, the Twitter case, legal opinion and all that. YOu do find yourself on the losing end of all these .
Ever wonder why ? LOL...

Quote:

This is the thing -- we don't even have evidence that a crime has been committed. We have a story that is accepted as the starting point of the investigation. That investigation has almost nothing to investigate. In fact, recent trials have shown the women, at the time, even encouraged more of the same.

Convoluted garbage is ...er convoluted.

Tons of criminal investigations start with a story. Did you actually think they dont? Ee gad boy, thats a dumb thing to think.

How many examples do you wish to have? Or perhaps you want to walk this one back when you think about it ? (hint <---- yea maybe you should)

Quote:

Gregory Allan Elliott was charged with criminal sexual harassment.

OMG...you finally get it ..Oh shit, wait.

No you dont.

Why would you lie about this? This is where you are a complete f**king ass.

Anyone stumbling upon your writings should have no problem labelling you as fake news and full of shit. Kind like a right winger .

Heres the charge you BS partisan.

R v Elliott was a criminal harassment trial based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Quote:

You don't get into a trial unless you are charged with something.

Thanks Capt Obvious !
[quote] The women who charged him were officers of an organization called Toronto Women in Politics, some of whose members work in the AG's office.
The AG charged Elliot and the AG is a member of TWIP ? Never heard that. Link please ?

Quote:

Ghomeshi's real crime seems to have been that he turned the women who charged him down.

Naw, he is just a scumbag who couldnt get pinned. So he is allowed to walk free and I am A-ok with that.

Quote:

All of these cases are unprecedented, and women have been allowed to commit actual crimes in obstructing justice, public mischief, and slander. Yet they don't have to answer for anything.

They dont huh?

They ALL walk free do they? But men never do the same do they . Phew, I sure jope they dont.

Quote:

Everyone lies, and everyone ought to know it.

Especially those who purport to report the truth and get tripped up time and time and time and time again. (grab a mirror )

You are getting so stupid I don't even know what you are getting at. I refer you to an article that goes on at length about how "rape" had morphed into these new sexual offenses and you draw people's attention to the title of the trial.

There is nothing convoluted in what I said. The police cannot start with a crime, if there is no crime, only an offended woman. They end up investigating accusations that cant be substantiated. And this is increasingly the case. What used to be at the level of "stealing a kiss" is now "sexually inappropriate behaviour" and subject to criminal or civil prosecution. Gregory Allan Elliott was finally found not guilty, after all, because they couldn't find anything threatening or sexual. But why did it get to a trial?

I refer you to an article that goes on at length about how "rape" had morphed into these new sexual offenses and you draw people's attention to the title of the trial.

Ahh...so I am not stupid then ! Thanks for the bolster.

Oh you see I caught you out lying again (Qu'elle surprise!)....and again....and again.

Yea...dont blame you for trying to deflect things. LOL!

Quote:

There is nothing convoluted in what I said. The police cannot start with a crime,

Really. Wow, oh wait, you never researched this did you. Come on buddy, dont rely on that brain of yours to work. It isnt, hasnt for some time been reliable and its why you get tripped up continuously...Bryant...Weiner...gays...shall I go on?

So, there is a case going on right now. Its a murder case . Babcock /Smich/Millard trial.

Did you know there is no evidence she is dead? No body, no scene of crime, no weapon has been found with any DNA or other corroborating evidence?

Hang on, I will call the courthouse and tell the Judge "bugs says theres no crime, stop the trial."

I did, everyone laughed and said is that the bugs who is in a senile old folks home and he thinks sex assault or some old dude pounding his daughter is ok"
Yea, thats him.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO....I had to leave, the laughter was too loud.

(By the way, I can fill your inbox on similar cases of 'no crime' )

Quote:

What used to be at the level of "stealing a kiss" is now "sexually inappropriate behaviour" and subject to criminal or civil prosecution.

Maybe you are getting it!
Keep on with the Ensure old timer, its working.

So the law has changed? Even for old fuddy duddy seniors like you! Because you are the ones who dont like that they cant pat any womans behind, cop a feel when they want, steal a kiss.

People should understand that Human Rights imposes financial and other penalties on people for continuing practices that are traditional, or at least of long standing. They don't enforce existing standards, they impose new standards on society, and those standards are not mandated through the political process.

The Commissions themselves have been overwhelmingly staffed by activists from a wide variety of the kinds of people who benefit from 'human rights'. This is probably a time to unpack how human rights differ from civil rights.

Civil rights limit what the state can do to the individual subject. It is most clearly put in the US Bill of Rights, where the amendments say things like "Congress shall do nothing to establish a religion ..." for example. The right to free speech means that indivduals can say what they want without fear of government restraint or penalty. We used to have it. Now we have it within the limits that it doesn't upset other organized groups.

Human rights are different in that they bestow benefits. It changes a charitable act into a requirement of the state. The invocation of human rights makes the federal state an agent of the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court can require Parliament to honour the so-called human rights of whatever group, and force them to change policy.

Civil Rights draw a boundary between the public, political sphere, and the private sphere that exists beyond politics, where people engaged in what Jefferson called "the pursuit of happiness".

Human Rights impose a duty. It requires the governments to provide enough services so that the disabled live as full a life as anyone else. This can generate endless demands. This is why, when special identity groups are granted 'human rights', especially when those special rights cling to racial/cultural practices, it creates the very kind of situation it was created to avoid -- institutionalized racism.

In this case, we are actually forcing the police to account for their behaviour to outside gender activists. Who else can do that? Can Jamaican parents form an organization and have them account for why they hassled Dexter at the mall? They won't let that happen. What about those who oppose the pronouns? Do they get a committee too?

This is putting the police force at the service of a sexual agenda. That's how I see it, and I am not responding to TC's horseshit. I am responding to serious responses.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum